from the enough-is-enough dept

Last month, we wrote about a troubling decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to give control over the new .pharmacy domain to big pharma -- thus allowing it to lock out sites around the world that threaten its generous profit margins. An article in the journal "Globalization and Health" warns that something similar could be about to happen in the realm of public health:

In just a few weeks, the Internet could be expanded to include a new .health generic top-level domain name run by a for-profit company with virtually no public health credentials -- unless the international community intervenes immediately. This matters to the future of global public health as the "Health Internet" has begun to emerge as the predominant source of health information for consumers and patients.

The paper, which is open access, and can therefore be read for free in its entirety, gives some hypothetical examples of what could happen:

http://www.[smoking].[health](potentially purchased by a tobacco company)

http://www.[cancer].[doctor](potentially purchased by unscrupulous vendors catering to the desperate dying)

The paper's authors explain:

Despite this increasing use and reliance on online health information that may have inadequate quality or reliability, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced it intends to move forward with an auction to award the exclusive, 10 year rights to the .health generic top-level domain name. This decision is being made over the protests of the World Medical Association, World Health Organization, and other stakeholders, who have called for a suspension or delay until key questions can be resolved.

ICANN responded to those concerns by asking the International Chamber of Commerce to decide whether a company, rather than a health organization, should be allowed to run the .health domain. No surprise what the outcome was:

a rejection of challenges filed by ICANN’s own independent watchdog and others, such that ICANN's Board decided in June 2014 that there are "no noted objections to move forward" in auctioning the .health generic top-level domain name to the highest bidder before the end of the year.

"No noted objections" if you exclude important chunks of the world's medical community, that is. Or perhaps ICANN simply meant "no noted objections from the companies that stand to gain the most from controlling this lucrative domain". The paper's authors conclude:

we call for an immediate moratorium/suspension of the ICANN award/auction process in order to provide the international public health community time to ensure the proper management and governance of health information online.

In fact, we need to go much further. Rather than simply calling for a moratorium on the auction of these new domains, we should be calling for ICANN itself to be abolished, and replaced with an organization that is concerned with maximizing the global benefits of running the Internet domain system and not, as presently seems the case, with maximizing the profits of a few lucky companies. ICANN has had long enough to show that it is a worthy guardian of this unique and critical resource; it has failed to do so. Time to get rid of it.

As the registry operator of the new .pharmacy domain, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), under a contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will soon provide a means for identifying safe online pharmacies and resources. Under the Association’s Registry Agreement, executed with ICANN on June 19, 2014, the new .pharmacy generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) will be available only to legitimate online pharmacies and related entities located in the United States or other countries. The Registry Agreement also includes a number of safeguards intended to protect consumers around the world.

The question is: what will "only available to legitimate online pharmacies" and "intended to protect consumers" mean in practice? The concern is that these are euphemisms for big pharma shutting out those competitors offering lower-cost products, particular foreign pharmacies, and manufacturers of generics. That fear is not assuaged by the following comment from the NABP in its response to such concerns (pdf)

the .PHARMACY TLD will provide a powerful tool to educate consumers, distinguish legitimate Internet pharmacies from the thousands of rogue Internet drug outlets, and reinforce the value of purchasing medications only from trusted online sources.

Big pharma is clearly as keen as the copyright industries to "educate" consumers about what they ought to be doing. The danger here is that such "education" will include not trusting perfectly safe pharmacies outside the US (in Canada, for example), and not using much cheaper generics. Since NABP now controls this entire domain it will have a free hand to block any outfit that does not subscribe to those views, and thus to attempt to delegitimize them in the eyes of the consumer.

This is something new. Hitherto, there has been no danger of this kind of discrimination against particular classes of Internet users, since registry operators were focused on maximizing profits by getting as many domains issued as possible. That won't be the case for .pharmacy, where the aim is to police the online pharmacy world, and to protect the generous profits of big pharma -- not make a few dollars selling a domain or two. Assuming that happens, we can probably expect other industries to follow suit in creating and controlling new domains, and for the Internet to become less free and neutral.

from the a-sanitized-internet...-for-the-corporations dept

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, strongly suggested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, the body in charge of approving Web site domain names, should reject a proposal to allow ‘sucks’ as a new generic top level domain, referred to as gTLD.

In a letter to the organization, Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that the .sucks domain name could be abused by parties “to unfairly defame individuals, non-profit organizations and businesses.”

First off, simply saying a person, NPO or business "sucks" isn't defamation. The content of those sites may meet that bar, but a domain name utilizing .sucks isn't defamatory in and of itself. And it's routinely been found that sites such as walmartsucks, etc. are covered under the First Amendment.

But Rockefeller goes even further than just assuming .sucks domains will be filled with defamatory content. He also assumes that anyone/anything confronted with a .sucks site will be forced to spend money fighting to keep their reputations from sliding into the internet toilet.

“I view it as little more than a predatory shakedown scheme,” Rockefeller said. “The business model behind this gTLD seems to be the following: force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and even individuals to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”

What Rockefeller fails to consider is that these entities could also do nothing. Fighting a "sucks" site rarely makes the situation better. But this is the way those to seek to govern the internet view things: as worst case scenarios played out against a Wild West background. There's no room for subtlety in the debate and there's no "fostering" of "conversations," as those marketing these domains state in their defense.

And every new gTLD can be viewed as a "shakedown scheme." Businesses rush to secure (or to block off) new TLDs in order to prevent domain squatters, competitors and critics from snatching them up. Singling out ".sucks" as nothing more than a predatory scheme ignores the reality -- a new gTLD will always be a combination gold rush/shakedown.

Rockefeller points to one registration site, Vox Populi Registry, which is marketing .sucks domain names as "defensive" purchases -- with a starting price of $2,500 which will escalate to $25,000 once the "sunrise period" hits. From this, he extrapolates a "shakedown scheme" across all registration entities, even as others have denied viewing this gTLD as an easy way to hoover up defensive corporate funds.

A spokesman for the other firm, Donuts Inc., said the company “carefully considered the utility of each gTLD for which we applied.”

He also defended Donuts’ business model which he said “is focused on providing Internet users around the world with real choice in how they craft their online identities. We are not soliciting, and have no plans to solicit, ‘defensive registrations.’”

So, there are those who facilitate an open internet, one that will certainly bring out the worst in some people. And there are those who assume only the worst kind of people exist and try to route the internet around them. But Rockefeller, like many other legislators who set their sights on making the web "safe," fails to realize that it's the internet itself that does the "routing," and it views censorship as nothing more than damage to be avoided.

(Rockefeller may be more concerned than most, considering some of his biggest donors -- AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon -- are often referred to in phrases that end with "sucks.")

Rockefeller envisions an internet where corporations and individuals seldom hear discouraging words, but that notion is entirely unrealistic. If he gets his way, the internet (as it were) will simply find another outlet for its frustrations with corporations, non-profit organizations and aggravating people -- and it will still be composed (nearly) entirely of protected speech that "forces" these entities to play defense. And there won't be a thing he can do about it.

from the killing-the-grey-market dept

For years, we've noted that the big drug companies like to conflate legitimate foreign pharmacies (often based in Canada) that sell back into the US (the so-called "reimportation" or "parallel import" market) at cheaper prices with out and out bogus or counterfeit online pharmacies. The drug companies like nothing better than when people lump the two very different beasts together and label them all as "counterfeit." Of course, for many Americans, relying on cheaper legit drugs from Canada is the only way they can survive, and there have been efforts made at times by US politicians -- including President Obama -- to support more parallel importation to ease the high cost of drugs in the US.

However, there's an interesting tidbit coming out in the ongoing battles over new top level domains. It appears that the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy is seeking a .pharmacy domain, which (obviously) they would then only bestow upon pharmacies that they like. That could be a big issue, because it's likely they wouldn't allow that for certain Canadian pharmacies and other foreign legitimate pharmacies that may offer cheaper drugs. Both Demand Progress and Public Citizen recently filed comments with ICANN about why NABP should not be allowed to control .pharmacy.

Granting the .pharmacy domain to NABP would confer legitimacy on pharmacies sanctioned by NABP, to the detriment of those that are not.

NABP has proposed an unfair standard that would bar online pharmacies that serve US consumers but are located outside of the United States from using the domain (see NABP’s application at Section 18(a) IV*). This would exclude many licensed pharmacies which offer American consumers low-cost medicines of quality.

Whether a pharmacy is located in the United States does not determine whether a pharmacy is licensed and provides medicines of quality.

Consumer access to medicines depends in significant part on price and competition. It would be inappropriate to allow NABP to control such an important gTLD while it maintains exclusionary plans for the domain, which work against the consumer interest in a robust market of quality affordable pharmaceuticals.

The pharmaceutical industry has prioritized trying to shut down legitimate pharmacies selling safe Canadian drugs to U.S. consumers (as currently allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration). But their tactics to achieve these anti-consumer goals involve censorship regimes allowing government seizure of domains, blacklists of sites, or suspended hosting services for legitimate competitors.

NABP supporters have justified their actions by preying on consumer fear of counterfeiters, when their real goals include shutting down sites providing cheaper legitimate drugs. Pfizer joined the assault on the Net in 2011, testifying to Congress that: "The major threat to patients in the U.S., however, is the Internet..." ...

NABP's supporters define "fake pharmacies" as those not registered with VIPPS, rather than only those selling actual counterfeit goods.

The Demand Progress comment also points out how the big pharmaceutical companies supported SOPA and PIPA, since they knew that it, too, would be useful to use as a sledgehammer against foreign online pharmacies that sold legitimate drugs back into the US.

from the nice-trademark-you've-got-here,-wouldn't-want-anything-to-happen-to-it dept

We've pointed out for years that ICANN's new "top level domains" programs often feel much more like a way to shake down trademark holders who feel the need to buy each and every new domain with their trademarked names, just to prevent anyone else from getting them. Now, ICANN has taken this a step further, streamlining the process by launching a "trademark clearinghouse" in which companies can register a trademark and get early access to "buy" all of the new top level domains with their mark before they reach the open market. Of course, "supporters" are pushing companies to join... and the pitch really does sound like your typical mob shakedown:

The clearinghouse "doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur," he added. "We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it."

I mean, paying the local mob boss "doesn't necessarily prevent anyone from breaking your windows, but it does help in mitigating the likelihood that damage might occur." And "it's not that expensive to protect yourself, so you ought to do it."

from the come-on dept

Last month, we wrote about how the RIAA was backing a version of the .music top level domain that would only allow "accredited" musicians to get domains with a .music suffix. Their key concern, as always, was that .music would be used for infringement. It appears that it's not just the RIAA who's concerned, and not just about .music. Paul Keating points us to the news that various other legacy entertainment industry groups, including the MPAA, ASCAP and others, have joined with the RIAA to warn of the horrors that await if .music, .movies and .games are allowed without special anti-piracy features.

In a position statement, “New gTLDs Targeting Creative Sectors: Enhanced Safeguards”, the groups say that such gTLDs are “fraught with serious risks” and should be controlled more rigorously than other gTLDs.

“If new gTLDs targeted to these sectors – e.g., .music, .movies, .games – are launched without adequate safeguards, they could become havens for continued and increased criminal and illegal activity,” the statement says.

It goes on to make seven demands for regulations covering Whois accuracy, enforced anti-piracy policies, and private requests for domain name take-downs.

But, here's the thing: all that stuff already happens on other domains. What difference does it make if it happens on those new domains? It's not like domains are a totally scarce resource, and stopping piracy on one particular TLD will somehow prevent infringement. This just seems like a strange and pointless battle. It's not actually fighting infringement. It's fighting the possibility that a certain domain will be used for infringement -- even though preventing that won't stop any infringement at all, since it will continue on other websites. So why even spend time focusing on something so useless?

It says something about the mindset of these organizations that they can't comprehend that making a stand over this is completely meaningless. They just instinctively lash out at anything new.

from the moneygrab.xxx dept

With .xxx domains now available, we've noted how organizations were snapping them up not because they want to create porn websites, but because they don't want porn sites under their name. Of course, that just highlights the key problem with any new TLD: they become a total cash grab by ICANN and whoever manages the TLD. It's even worse with .xxx, since many organizations feel they need to grab their brands on that to prevent any connection to porn.

When the sellers of .xxx domain names put them on sale last week, they did not address their marketing campaigns just to adult content owners. Instead, they ran ads with headlines like ".XXX LANDRUSH IS NOW OPEN. PROTECT YOUR BRAND" or "SECURE YOUR DOMAIN. PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION," By heeding their warnings, brands, universities, and individuals flocked to the sites of domain name sellers and bought up tens of thousands of names, at about $200 per name. According to press reports, more than 70,000 applications have been received since the doors opened, netting sellers more than $15 million barely out of the gate.

Basically, the company admits that this is a borderline shakedown: if you want to "protect" yourself from someone building a porn site with your brand, pay up.

The whole thing appears to have angered online porn giant Manwin Licensing International, who is now suing ICANN and ICM saying that the whole thing is about "monopolistic conduct, price gouging, and anticompetitive and unfair practices." I would imagine that in any such lawsuit, ICM's advertising practices around the "buy up or else" won't look too good...

from the .xxx dept

For many years, we've pointed out that the introduction of new top level domains (TLDs) has always been more about the cash grab than anything reasonable. The whole point is to get a bunch of companies to pay up to buy theirdomain.tld, just to prevent others from squatting. And now that .xxx is around, the same thing is happening... even to the point that Universities and colleges are buying up .xxx domains to keep them away from porn sites. Of course, this is a total waste of money, but various schools feel they need to do it. In the end, it seems like these new TLDs come across more as a protection racket than anything else. You feel the need to buy them... or run the risk of someone else "doing something bad" with them.

from the the-internet-is-like-a-box,-see... dept

There are all sorts of reasonable points of disagreement over ICANN's plan to add generic top level domains (.whatever rather than just .com, .net, etc...). Of course, we've argued that the whole idea of TLDs is obsolete anyway, and rather than ICANN's convoluted process of selling each new generic TLD, it should just open things up, so that rather than saying people can register "whatever.com," they should be able to just register "whatever." Trademark owners have also complained about the generic TLD efforts, in large part because they've seen what happens when ICANN created absolutely useless TLDs like .jobs, that made many companies feel they need to go out and pay to register their name.jobs (leading to sophomorically snicker-worthy sites like http://rim.jobs, which appears to no longer be functioning, though it did for a while).

However, one complaint that simply hasn't made much sense are complaints from copyright holders over generic TLDs. We've seen the RIAA complain that it might lead to more infringement, which appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of how the internet works (shocking) rather than on any legitimate complaint. Of course, Copycense points us to the news that "The Copyright Alliance" (a sort of propaganda/lobbying organization for extreme copyright maximalists) has now come out against generic TLDs as well for the delightfully ridiculous reason that it means "more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators."

Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.

from the open-the-whole-thing-up dept

For many years, we've wondered about the wisdom of ICANN slowly doling out totally pointless new top level domains (TLDs) -- like .jobs and .mobi -- that seemed much more focused on getting companies to pay up for domains they didn't need, rather than serving any useful purpose. With the recent approval of .xxx, the same thing is happening. Various porn companies feel the need to buy up .xxx domain names, even though they already have domains they're happy with. And making things even worse is that various countries, with India taking the lead, have declared plans to block all access to the .xxx domain anyway.

Of course, this is kind of silly. It's as if they're pretending that porn doesn't exist elsewhere on the web. But, the other silly thing this highlights is the idea of slowly rolling out specialized TLDs. For years, we've been asking why ICANN doesn't just do away with specialized TLDs and let anyone register anything.anyTLD. It really would not be that difficult to set up a system to allow that, and then you get away from this idea of having to set up all these expensive special TLDs. It also makes it silly for any country to target a specific TLD to block. But, of course, it won't happen, because it doesn't involve the companies wishing to be registrars of these new TLDs getting tons of cash.